beta
Text
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months and by imprisonment for six months.
, however, from the date this judgment becomes final.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. On November 7, 2007, the Defendant issued a false testimony to the Busan District Court, a witness of the case in violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership, etc. at the Busan District Court, on November 7, 201, that “the Defendant is actually holding five-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-five-six-six-five-six-six-six-five-six-six-five-six-six-five-six-five-six-five-six-five-six-five-six-five-six-five-six-six-six-five-five-five-six-five-five-six-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-three-three-five-five-
Accordingly, the defendant instigated the above A with perjury.
2. On November 16, 201, Defendant A’s perjury appeared and taken an oath in the Busan District Court Criminal Law No. 14 Germany, Busan District Court Decision 201Da3767, which was located in the Busan District Court’s Doo-gu, Busan District Court on November 7, 201, as a witness of a violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership Transfer, etc., and thereafter, the prosecutor’s “I am asked whether the Defendant (B) purchased the shares of the instant real estate from the J (K) of the witness’s father,” and the presiding judge testified that “I will conclude the real estate sales contract of this case accurately every year” in question, “I will not know about the fact that the Defendant (B) signed the real estate sales contract of this case with Defendant (B) around 2005 at the time of entering into the real estate sales contract of this case as the purchase contract of this case separately from the father of the witness in around 1984.”
However, B did not have concluded a sales contract with J(K) as the defendant's reference to the real estate of this case and I at the time of residence as the real estate of this case.
Accordingly, the defendant is against his memory.